Re: [asa] Fw: Temperature Records

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Dec 10 2009 - 11:04:33 EST

>
> Hmmm.... seems I wasted an hour or so finding this out for myself!!
>
> Still ... you can't beat "engaging with the data".
>
> Iain
>

Actually it's a great help and thanks Iain, because it shows how science and
the peer review process really works. It's not competing blog entries and
web sites. Rather, it's taking the conclusions and trying to replicate or
falsify it. Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is by no means a
sufficient condition for good science. It's the boring replication part that
gets little public attention where the real work gets done.

Of all the leaked e-mails the one that are the most troubling are the ones
trying to keep the crazy stuff out of the journals. By having it out there
it subjects these ideas to expert scrutiny and either replication and
falsification like you did in a mere hour. I've also found negative results
are often more valuable than positive ones. Anyway that was my opinion a
mere few weeks ago. Over the last couple weeks seeing up close how the
disinformation machine works and the bogus slides that Willie Soon, one of
the authors of the attempted blocked paper, provided for Lord Monckton I am
currently re-thinking this. See here for more details noting the source of
the graph.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
Lord
Monckton attributed it to Willie Soon in his speech with the run up to
Copenhagen. (I was asked offline to look at this video. I only got six
minutes in before I had to empty the trash can of vomit.)

One last thing concerning my use of the word denialist. This is reserved for
those who *deny* the existence of antropogenic global warming. True skeptics
such as John Cristy accept it. In fact, I saw a video from February of this
year where Dr. Cristy accepted the 0.15 degree per decade anthropogenic
warming which is the consensus figure. It should be noted that Dr. Cristy is
a huge fan of using the satellites over the ground stations. If he was
convinced it must have been from the data source he believes is most
accurate. Satellites were helpful, BTW, in solving the attribution problem.
Antropogenic and solar warming have different signatures of warming at
different altitudes. The profile of the warming with altitude found by the
satellites and radiosondes match antropogenic but not solar warming.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 10 11:04:52 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 10 2009 - 11:04:52 EST